Monday, April 16, 2012

You Won’t Believe This One, Even Evolutionists Call it “Totally Crazy”

Evolution expects the species to fall into a very definite pattern, but they don’t. For example, we saw that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution. But the contradictions don’t stop there. Evolutionists were further shocked to find such similar features in completely different organisms, on completely different parts of the evolutionary tree. Consider, for example, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates shown in the figure (which shows the 5 supergroups that comprise the eukaryotes). These two groups are very different—Dinoflagellates are Chromalveolates while Euglenids are Excavates—but their mitochondria are not only similar, but similar in ways that are highly unique. Imagine finding an automobile with six wheels instead of four. It is the only one of its kind. But then you discover the same anomaly in a distant country, an automobile with six wheels while all the rest have four wheels.

You can hear about the incredible mitochondria similarities between the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates here (or you can see the paper here), beginning at the [28:30] mark. It is well worth a listen for you will learn that these distant mitochondria have in common: polycistronic transcription, reduced ribosomal RNA, universal import of tRNAs, use of the enzyme tRNA-Met formyl-transferase, trans-splicing, extensive RNA editing and 3’ polyadenylation and polyuridylylation. Here is how the evolutionist describes it at the [32.50] mark:

What is here common is total mayhem of the organellar genome—breakdown. Either you have very complicated structure in the kinetoplastids, and I will talk a little bit later on that, or, you have even more complicated, this is totally crazy, this was published last year, or actually two years ago in Science. This appears that these diplonemida have everything! They manage their organellar genome in such a sophisticated way, that is still beyond my comprehension.

Then we have apicomplexans plasmodium that have some small, short, linear molecules, and all genes from the mitochondria of malaria have been exported into the nucleus. There are just three, actually two even fused together, but they are in different sequence contexts, they are in fragments. So apparently they have to be spliced together. Enormous effort have to be invested just to produce two or three genes. And in dinoflagellates it’s even worse. The genes are again split into fragments—pieces are just like you would take scissors and cut them and paste them together. Then, on top of that, the transcripts are edited. So you need a vast range of proteins that perform these editings. And these editings are complex. So you have guanines changed to adenines, uridines changed to cytosines, cytosines in other positions changed to uridines. So you have five or six different changes of the given base, then you look on the level of amino acids, because you would expect that all this effort is made in order to change the amino acid, and in some cases the amino acid is not changed. So it’s like they do it for fun. And that is extreme in both of these groups.

It doesn’t make any sense on evolution not only because these are highly unique designs, but they then appear repeatedly, in otherwise very distant species. This is not what evolution expected and this is far beyond any level of evolutionary noise. Nor will the oft-used gene transfer explanation work in this case. This is an instance of massive convergence that makes no sense on evolution.

We saw that evolutionists needed the term “Recurrent evolution” to explain repeated convergence. Now evolutionists are calling these “totally crazy” arrangements: “Corresponding evolutionary histories” or “Cascades of convergent evolution.”

Evolution is not merely a scientific theory. If that were the case it would have been discarded long ago. Evolution is a dogma. That is why evolutionists make extreme truth claims. Rather than tentative, scientific, explanations of the evidence, evolutionists insist that their idea is a fact. A fact every bit as much as gravity or the fact that the Earth is round. It is beyond all reasonable doubt, they insist.

To say this is a misrepresentation of the science is putting it lightly. Evolution has been mandated by religious thought for centuries and it is a corruption of science. With evolution, we have lost the ability to reason scientifically.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

53 comments:

  1. It is interesting to note that at the 43:10 mark of the video,,

    http://sackler.nasmediaonline.org/2009/darwin/julius_lukes/julius_lukes.html

    ,, he describes the fairly elaborate process by which the maxi and mini circles of the mitochondria DNA are lost in sub-speciation events, Thus conforming exactly to what we would expect to see from a genetic entropy standpoint, yet, in all his elaboration of the astonishing complexity he (and his team) was dealing with, not once did he mention how even a single protein, in all that integrated complexity, arose by neo-Darwinian processes.,,, Thus once again we are left with the burning question, the burning question that is never honestly addressed by Darwinists, 'From whence did all this complexity arise in the first place?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. You haven't demonstrated any specific similarities. List them please. "Chaos happened independently in the mitochondria of two lineages" is not specific similarites.

    And, this is mostly another example of genome reduction -- mitochondrial genomes started out as full bacterial genomes. They lost genes (some went to the nucleus) over time. In some groups, almost all genes have been lost, and when the genome sequence gets very small, even the codon-to-amino-acid code can change (through drift or selection) without killing the organism, although the change is still somewhat constrained, so you can get convergence in changes to the code (e.g., stop codons are often recoded).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick:

      You haven't demonstrated any specific similarities. List them please.

      Quoting from the OP: "It is well worth a listen for you will learn that these distant mitochondria have in common: polycistronic transcription, reduced ribosomal RNA, universal import of tRNAs, use of the enzyme tRNA-Met formyl-transferase, trans-splicing, extensive RNA editing and 3’ polyadenylation and polyuridylylation."

      this is mostly another example of genome reduction

      No, way off. When are you going to stop carrying the water for them?

      Delete
    2. Most of those are obvious products of genome reduction in the plastid, and the others might well be so. Loss of stuff and various kludges to make the scraps that remain function is not "specific similarities."

      It's right there in your quote:

      What is here common is total mayhem of the organellar genome—breakdown.

      This stuff doesn't even have the "appearance of design", it's got the appearance of genome breakdown! Creationists who knew more would be claiming all of this as examples of transfer or loss-of-information.

      Just because scientists use big words and get excited over weird stuff doesn't mean you've got amazing complex parallel adaptations sharing lots of optional features.

      Delete
    3. Nick you state:

      'This stuff doesn't even have the "appearance of design", it's got the appearance of genome breakdown!'

      In his post, John has nailed you perfectly on this Nick:

      'Breakdown of a nondesign? Is this like evil without good again? What are you talking about?

      Delete
    4. somewhat related note:

      Safeguarding genome integrity through extraordinary DNA repair - April, 2011
      Excerpt: Unlike euchromatin, where most of an organism’s genes reside and where most DNA consists of long, unrepetitive sequences of base pairs, DNA in heterochromatin consists mostly of short repeated sequences that don’t code for proteins; indeed, heterochromatin was long regarded as containing mostly “junk” DNA.
      Heterochromatin is now known to be anything but junk, playing a crucial role in organizing chromosomes and maintaining their integrity during cell division. It is concentrated near centromeres, where chromatids are in closest contact, which are required to transmit chromosomes from one generation to the next. Maintaining heterochromatin structure is necessary to the normal growth and functions of cells and organisms.
      http://phys.org/news/2011-04-safeguarding-genome-extraordinary-dna.html

      Delete
  3. Born: Thus once again we are left with the burning question, the burning question that is never honestly addressed by Darwinists, 'From whence did all this complexity arise in the first place?"

    Don't you mean the question that never get's addressed by ID proponents:
    How was the knowledge used to build all of this complexity, as found in the genome of this organism, created?

    In the case of evolutionary theory, we explain this knowledge in that it is created by a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

    What's your explanation? Oh, thats right. You've never honestly addressed this question. Why should you start now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. Scott, I lost you there, you seem to be asking two very different questions here. Also, addressing a different question that is not honestly addressed on one side does not make the initial question more honest. Basically...what is your point? Perhaps you could try and explain exactly what you mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ForJah,

      Biological features represent adaptations of nature. These adaptations only occur in the presence of the knowledge of how to perform them, which is found in the genome of organisms. If we change the genome, we end up with different adaptations.

      As such, the origin of this knowledge is the origin of these adaptations.

      For example, we'd like to cure genetic diseases by causing new or reversing previous biological transformations in human beings. However, these transformations only occur when the requisite knowledge of which genes are responsible for the desired features, the knowledge of the specific way they should be changed to active the desired transformations and the knowledge of how to change just those genes, while leaving the remaining genes unchanged, is actually present.

      In the absence of such knowledge, these transformations do not occur, regardless of how much we might want them to.

      Merely claiming some designer "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to perform these adaptations, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared", with the knowledge of how to perform these adaptations, already present in their genome.

      Nether explain the knowledge of how to perform these adaptations.

      So, you're correct in that it's not the same question. Born's query doesn't honestly address the objection he himself raised. Despite flaming to have answered it, he merely pushed the problem into into some unexplainable realm. It's as if he merely pushed the food around on his plate, then claimed he ate it. Yet it's still there staring him in the face.

      In other words, Born's argument doesn't include any particular epistemology. As such, the origin of this knowledge goes unexplained.

      Delete
    2. Scott falsely claims:

      'In other words, Born's argument doesn't include any particular epistemology.'

      Yet the truth is that Scott is the one who has no rational epistemological basis:

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
      http://vimeo.com/34468027

      Last power point of preceding video states:

      The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      Atheistic materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place. This absurdity extends all the way into Darwin’s evolutionary theory itself:

      Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter
      Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

      What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

      Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

      The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is giving in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

      Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011
      Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)
      Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html

      Delete
    3. Except, you're projecting your own assumptions on me, yet again.

      I'm a fallibilist and a critical rationalist, which means I think that even our best theories still have errors in them. The best we can do is discard errors in our theories, which gets us closer to the truth.

      Again, this is a problem for you, not me, as apparently you think it's necessary to justify some sort of guarantee based on some ultimate foundation.

      Delete
    4. Actually Scott, I agree with most of what you were saying. But as for the analogy, I think it's better represented by trying to find out where the food on my plate came from. If I say it came from the larger dining room plate in the center..than that answer is fine with me. It does answer the question. I feel like you are getting caught up in the "who designed the designer" argument, which in all honesty is a little weak. It's like saying we can't say the big bang happen because what happen before the big bang? Trying to explain where the food came from is successfully answered by saying...my mom gave it to me. But asking where my mom got it from is a different question. At least ID answers the real question, even though it may not answer the full question just yet. The question where does biological complexity come from ...it came from an intelligent source. I don't really see a successful answer on the evolution side of this question. This is not to say of course that ID is completely right and trumps evolutionary theory...since I don't believe it's a science..the same reason I don't believe Evolution is a science but either way, evolution does not provide a satisfactory answer to the question, "where does this complexity arise from?"

      Delete
    5. ForJah: If I say it came from the larger dining room plate in the center..than that answer is fine with me. It does answer the question.

      Except It doesn't solve it, because all you've done is push the problem into some unexplainable realm.

      We could more economical state that organisms, "just appeared" with the knowledge of how to perform these adaptations, already present in their genome.

      Your solution doesn't take into account our best, most resent explanations for how knowledge is created, the role it plays in adapting things, etc.

      Delete
  5. Okie Dokie Scott, you say 'knowledge' is created by conjecture and refutation. I ask 'From whence did this complexity arise?' I offer that there are only two possible options, 1. the complexity either arises 'bottom up' in a Darwinian fashion, or 2. it arises 'top down' in a engineering fashion. You conjecture that it arises bottom up. Doug Axe and company have brought refutation to that bottom up conjecture of yours by showing that functional protein domains are exceedingly rare. Yet we know for a fact that minds can produce such functional complexity fairly easily. Thus our 'knowledge' has increased because we have refuted the conjecture of 'bottom up' evolution and confirmed the conjecture of 'top down' design. Of course you will deny all this, but if you were ever inclined to be honest, you would have to provide a real world example of a functional protein domain being generated by purely material processes to being refutation to the intelligent design conjecture.

    Notes:

    Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Meet Mycoplasma, a parasitic bare-bones bacterium, with 484 genes.
    http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/526262_214092155366456_182588468516825_354683_222332123_n.jpg

    Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
    "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?"
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes."
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a

    First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm

    There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism - November 2009
    Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born: I offer that there are only two possible options, 1. the complexity either arises 'bottom up' in a Darwinian fashion, or 2. it arises 'top down' in a engineering fashion. You conjecture that it arises bottom up.

      What you've offered is an false dichotomy based on your justificationist epistemology. Apparently, you're either unaware of alternative epistemologies, or you're bound and determined to remain ignorant of them.

      Born: Doug Axe and company have brought refutation to that bottom up conjecture of yours by showing that functional protein domains are exceedingly rare.

      And this argument is highly parochial, as it doesn't take into account the different kinds of unknowability.

      The first kind of unknowability are scenarios where the outcome is completely random. An example of this is Russian Roulette. As long as you know all of the possible outcomes, we can use probability to make choices about it. For example, if for some horrible reason, one had to choose between different versions of Russian Roulette with specific yet variable number of chambers, bullets and trigger pulls, one could use game theory to determine which variation would be most favorable.

      On the other hand, scenarios that depend on the creation of knowledge represent a different kind of unknowability, despite being deterministic. For example, people in 1900 didn't consider nuclear power or the internet unlikely. They didn't conceive of them at all. As such, it's unclear how they could have factored their impact into some sort of probability calculation about the future.

      In the face of this kind of unknowability, probability is invalid as a means of criticizing explanations

      In the case of evolutionary theory, we do not know what other forms of life could have evolved, based on some other knowledge that could have been conjectured in the past. It's only if you assume the forms of life we observe were pre-selected ahead of time, down to the specific proteins, that you would know all of the possible outcomes. However, that such a selection actually occurred would be an assumption that isn't evident.

      Born: Yet we know for a fact that minds can produce such functional complexity fairly easily.

      Which is yet another parochial argument, in that it only takes into account a limited number of observations.

      Again, we know that the sort of complex adaptations brought about by human designers only occurs when the when the requisite knowledge of how to perform those adaptations, is actually present. To ignore this is to present an argument that does not integrate with any form of epistemology.

      That is, unless you consider "we create knowledge because, 'thats just what God must have wanted'" epistemology. But that's just another variation of the same bad explanation.

      Delete
    2. Scott exactly as I said,

      'Of course you will deny all this, but if you were ever inclined to be honest, you would have to provide a real world example of a functional protein domain being generated by purely material processes to being refutation to the intelligent design conjecture.'

      Delete
  6. Scott, you're evasive about answering whether you believe knowledge can be created BY absolutely nothing or not. Nothing is the ultimate origin of everything if one follows your argument. If you don't start with nothing then what do you start with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're confusing evasiveness with holding an non-justificationst form of epistemology.

      I'm suggesting that, before the earth was initially formed, the knowledge of how to build our biosphere didn't exist. It was created via a process of conjecture and refutation.

      Nor do I assume there is some ultimate explanation which justifies this knowledge. In fact, I do not assume any explanation is ultimate. Period. This mistake has been made time and time again.

      For example, we no longer thing atoms are the smallest things in the universe, despite that fact that their name has it's origin in the Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’

      From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalisms…

      William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.

      According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that if their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational.

      Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false.

      By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.


      You seem to fall in the former category, highlighted in bold.

      Delete
    2. What? For crying out loud you just denied any ultimate explanation and then proceeded as if your ultimate non-explanation is the ultimate explanation! Apparently you are to able to make an exception for yourself! ,,, What a bunch of self-deluded mush!

      Delete
    3. Scott, to focus on this misguided belief of yours;

      'Nor do I assume there is some ultimate explanation which justifies this knowledge.'

      Yet Godel has shown;

      Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century
      Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
      “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”
      http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

      Please note 'the circle' formed by the Cosmic Background Radiation:

      Picture of CMBR
      https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg

      Proverbs 8:26-27
      While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

      Moreover, atheists assume that 'randomness' is true (outside the circle) for the ultimate explanation for the origination of the universe, whereas Christian Theists presuppose God is true (outside the circle) for the origination of the universe. Yet insisting on randomness as the ultimate explanation for why the universe came into being leads to epistemological failure:

      The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      Moreover, presupposing 'infinite randomness', as atheists do with the multiverse, actually concedes the necessary premise to make the ontological argument, for God's existence, complete;

      Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds/Multiverse Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641

      Delete
    4. As well, the success of modern science itself, since it was born out of the presupposed (outside the circle) truthfulness of Christian Theism, and no other (outside the circle) presupposition, is what further, and dramatically, testifies that the Christian Theistic presupposition is true;

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011
      Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html

      Moreover, many modern physicists seem to have forgotten the lesson that was clearly born out by Godel, that you can't have a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything without assuming God as true, for they are vainly trying to unify Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR), into a mathematical 'theory of everything'. Yet when one allows God into the picture, then a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between QM and GR emerges:

      The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
      Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)
      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

      The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

      General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Delete
    5. Scott,

      bornagain77 is correct in his appraisal of your response.

      My question did not ask about the origin of the earth's biosphere or universe, a hypothetical multiverse or even quantum foam.... but the origin of the first knowledge.

      Your argument leads one to believe that absolutely nothing can create knowledge via a process of conjecture and refutation. Please explain how that works.

      Delete
    6. It leads *you* to believe that I'm claiming absolutely nothing can create knowledge via a process of conjecture because you're a justificationist.

      From...

      http://www.the-rathouse.com/Bartley/Leeson-vol.html

      Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism

      In the light of these ideas, we can discern a number of possible attitudes towards positions, notably those espoused by relativists, fideists (true believers) and critical rationalists.

      Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.

      True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.


      According to the critical rationalists, being exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one, (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley does provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.


      In other words, the problem you're referring to is a problem for you as a justificationist. However, since you have no other concept of epistemology, so you assume it's a problem for me as well. But it's not.

      Delete
    7. Scott, rather than copy/paste irrelevant posts why not try to answer the question.

      What is your own response to the dilemma of infinite regress?

      a. Not a problem?
      b. Just ignore?
      C. Categorize those that ask you uncomfortable questions with copy/paste references to philosophy?
      d. Other?

      Since you are unable to answer the question of where the first knowledge originated, how about something more recent...

      Where was the conjecture and refutation within lifeless chemicals to create the supposed knowledge of evolution in the first living organism?

      Delete
    8. Neal
      "Scott,rather than copy/ paste irrelevant posts,why not try to answer the question"

      Irony is wasted on the stupid...Oscar Wilde

      No offense intended,it just sprung to mind.

      Delete
    9. Neal,

      What part of the following do you not understand?

      In other words, the problem you're referring to is a problem for you as a justificationist. However, since you have no other concept of epistemology, so you assume it's a problem for me as well. But it's not.

      Also, how is a quote on a dichotomy between infinite regress and dogmatism not relevant?

      Delete
    10. Scott you display a passionate zeal of dogmatism for evolution in your posts. But, its only dogmatism if you don't agreed. Right?

      How far back does your process of conjecture and refutation take you? At least tell us where the boundary of your 'will not discuss' bubble is.

      Delete
    11. Neal: Scott you display a passionate zeal of dogmatism for evolution in your posts. But, its only dogmatism if you don't agreed. Right?

      Again, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

      From the quote…

      According to the critical rationalists, being exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one, (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism…

      … critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished.


      What part of this do you not understand? Please be specific.

      I'm a fallibilist and a critical rationalist, which means I think that even our best theories still have errors in them. The best we can do is continually critisize our theories, and discard errors we find, which gets us closer to the truth.

      Neal: How far back does your process of conjecture and refutation take you? At least tell us where the boundary of your 'will not discuss' bubble is.

      Apparently, you're suffer from serious issues with reading comprehension.

      I'm not the one claming we exist in a finite bubble of explicably surround by a sea of inexplicability that effects it. As such, there are no questions I must carefully avoid asking to said bubble from becoming inexplicable as well. That would be you, not me.

      Rather, I'm an optimist, in that unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would stop us from doing it is knowing *how*. This includes making large scale changes to planets, stars, and even solar systems and galaxies. In other words, it's not resources that are scarce, but knowledge.

      If there was some transformation that could not be brought about regardless of how much knowledge was brought to bare, this would be a regularity in nature, which would be testable. And an a tested regularity, it would be a law of physics.

      So, the idea that some transform would be impossible regardless of how much knowledge could be applied is a contradiction, as that transform would be impossible in the fist place, since it was prohibited by the laws of physics.

      Scott: Also, how is a quote on a dichotomy between infinite regress and dogmatism not relevant?

      Neal: < crickets >

      Delete
  7. Another good post touching on the soft underbelly of evolutionary error namely convergence ideas.

    If there was a common design it would be predicted that common structures for like needs would be apparent.
    if evolution was true it would be so unlikely to have such common instances of convergent structures in unrelated biology.

    Evolutionism must own up to this and must invoke powerfully limited optionism for what mutations and selection can do.
    This itself threatening the whole idea of evolution turning bugs into buffalos.

    It would be strange if the advanced modern studies of functions, features, of small biological entities becomes the deadly criticism of evolutionary biology.

    I think most people would find it unlikely that like functions evolve independently in a biological theory that insists on randomness odds.
    Its stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NickM: "This stuff doesn't even have the "appearance of design", it's got the appearance of genome breakdown!"

    Breakdown of a nondesign? Is this like evil without good again? What are you talking about?

    NickML "Loss of stuff and various kludges to make the scraps that remain function is not "specific similarities"

    That is a gross absurdity. Go to 39:30 and tell me why they use this process to code for an ATPase 6 that is "very similar to ours". You would have me believe these mitochondria evolved this suite of enzymes to continually reconstruct an ancient form of this protein rather than just dying and naturally selecting the original, apparently more valuable form? I mean nearly half the transcript is the precise insertion of this one nucleotide at many various locations. What connecting influence could possibly cause their finished product to look like ours given the way theirs is produced?

    One more target painted before the shot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a gross absurdity. Go to 39:30 and tell me why they use this process to code for an ATPase 6 that is "very similar to ours". You would have me believe these mitochondria evolved this suite of enzymes to continually reconstruct an ancient form of this protein rather than just dying and naturally selecting the original, apparently more valuable form? I mean nearly half the transcript is the precise insertion of this one nucleotide at many various locations. What connecting influence could possibly cause their finished product to look like ours given the way theirs is produced?

      The finished product looks like ours because that was the ancestral condition. What has changed is that there has been mayhem in the super-reduced genomes, and there are elaborate kludges to keep the bits that are left working, in the face of changes to the genetic code etc.

      Delete
    2. You would have me believe that it takes less time to come up with a reconstruction suite like this, rather than just be outcompeted by the organism who's ATPase simply didn't mutate? To the degree the sequence is important, such is the strength of the selection that would keep it in place. Saying that, oh it was not important enough to be under hard selection, but the sequence was important enough to be somehow worked back to (still invoking recurrent evolution) by this system is simply a compound fantasy.

      Delete
    3. It was never "worked back to". The amino acid sequence, which is the "front end" of the system that directly participates in function, has stayed basically the same from the ancestor until now. What has drifted is the "back end", the DNA/RNA system that codes for the amino acid sequence. Read the friggin' paper.

      The complexity of this "back end" is ridiculous and unnecessary, as the authors point out and as can be seen in "normal" organisms that just have gene --> protein, like us. This sort of useless, absurd complexity is thought to be the product of genetic drift, where e.g. pairs of deleterious changes that compensate for each other get fixed, and then are difficult to remove. One buzzword for this is "constructive neutral evolution". Anyone who comments on this topic without knowing this material and commenting on it is just revealing their own ignorance.

      Delete
    4. Nick: "Read the friggin' paper."

      Pardon me, but if I wanted evidence to back the imaginations of the author, I would have contacted him. I would like for you to do your own thought work if you don't mind, that is why I replied to you. I tried to spend some time coming up with a plausible evolutionary scenario for this, while you just blindly parroted the authors beliefs. If you don't want to spend time thinking about it, please don't waste mine. If you want to explain how the editing machinery evolved before it was necessary, as this author seems to believe, I'll listen to your ideas, but I can't discuss them until you present them.

      Nick:"This sort of useless, absurd complexity is thought to be the product of genetic drift, where e.g. pairs of deleterious changes that compensate for each other get fixed, and then are difficult to remove. One buzzword for this is "constructive neutral evolution"."

      So you admit it all reduces down to nondescript speculation? I guess it will be impossible for me to evaluate your (his?) claims after all, won't it? And for you this means... VICTORY! Buzzwords... yes the staples of real science.

      Nick: "Anyone who comments on this topic without knowing this material and commenting on it is just revealing their own ignorance."

      You've commented, so let's see what you know.

      Delete
  9. It was the mantra of evolutionists for 150 years, how a creator would have, should have, could have made life forms unique, but since we don't see that.... then evolution is the only valid explanation. Now that this has been refuted, evolutionists are left without their mantra, but with an established dogma that just lost its main support.

    Have you ever played a game where the other player wants to keep moving the goal posts? Even kids know it isn't fair play.

    The goal posts used to be the objective nested hierarchy, but that is quickly evaporating. Life was so much easier for evolutionists when they could force fit species by morphology in order to create the illusion of the tree of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Creationists have been at it a bit longer than 150 yrs, any explanation for the diversity of life beyond the whims of a Creator? Speaking of movable goal posts,inquiring minds wonder when the iPod nested hierarchy will be ready? Thanks

      Delete
    2. velikovskys, where's the move in the goal posts for those that believe in a creator? Only among evolutionists who now have to move to another "God wouldn't have done it that way" argument since their objective nested hierarchy has been refuted.

      Delete
    3. Velikovskys:

      Michelangelo created a great many works of art in different media. What exactly is the explanation for such creativity and diversity? Mozart created a lot of different pieces in different forms. What is the explanation? Picasso had his blue period, his cubist stuff, etc. Why isn't the whim of the creator a good enough explanation? Its how humans work.

      Delete
    4. natschuster, good question. For the evolutionists the data was supposed to show a strong confirmation of an objective nested hierarchy of morphology with DNA signaling further confirmation of said hierachy.

      But the genetic data did not cooperate with evolutionist expectations. This strikes at the very heart of foundation of evolution like nothing else.

      The fact of Evolution and the objective nested hierarchy of life are for practical purposes pretty much the same thing. Without the objective nested hierarchy evolutionary theory will lose the status of 'fact'.

      Delete
    5. Neal,
      Your goal posts are firmly planted as far as Creation.Since,in your opinion, science has failed to explain the diversity of life, does creationism offer any insight beyond the whims of the designer? For instance,what is a creationist's view of the research above which Dr Hunter feels overturns the whole of evolutionary science? What is a better explanation?

      Delete
    6. Creation follows a pattern based on typology not via common descent.

      The pattern that is emerging from the data has many similarities with information systems design of common base platforms, common code standards, feature codes and technical standards.

      Evolutionists have confused common technical standards across living organisms with descent. The mixing and matching of traits, however, betrays this view.

      The best classification system of the future could very well be based on biosystem platform similarities, which will greatly differ from the archaic and parochial nested hierachy patterns that evolutionists have constructed to force a tree of life view.

      Goodbye steamboat Darwin and hello 21st century systems biology.

      Delete
    7. That is an interesting question,Nat . " why isn't the whim of a Creator good enough". It certainly is good enough for a human designer,are you saying therefore a being with a limited intellect and human weaknesses is the Creator of the life on earth? Certainly some would say it appears that way,to quote Woody" The worst you can say about Him(God) that basically he's an underachiever."

      Of course not that would be ludicrous position,there can logically be only the Uncaused Designer,else you admit that natural causes can create life somewhere,sometime. So God is it. So your interesting question becomes" Why can't God act on a whim?" Do you agree that is a fair interpretation,Nat?

      Delete
    8. That's about right. My main point is that we can learn about how designers work by studying what designers do. some designers created stuff with lots of diversity for no apparent reason than a whim. WHy can't God do the same?

      Delete
  10. I thought about things for a while. It occurred to me that we are usually impressed by a designer who produces a lot of work. So being prolific as well as skilled, even if it merely follows whims is usually considered a sign of talent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster

      That's about right. My main point is that we can learn about how designers work by studying what designers do. some designers created stuff with lots of diversity for no apparent reason than a whim. WHy can't God do the same?


      Because merely settling for "God did it that way on a whim" doesn't explain a single thing. It's a worthless cop-out that leads nowhere, the worst form of intellectual laziness.

      I thought about things for a while. It occurred to me that we are usually impressed by a designer who produces a lot of work. So being prolific as well as skilled, even if it merely follows whims is usually considered a sign of talent.

      You sure about that? Just look at the epic piles of smelly garbage spewed by batspit77 every day. Quantity doesn't equal quality.

      Delete
  11. What if the Designer's whim was to do as little as possible? I think that if you object to the argument about bad design then it seems illogical to invoke any quality of design to support the Designer. For instance Neal believes in a typology. But if he argues that typology is a evidence for the Designer,he is committing the same error he accuses those who cite horrible diseases affecting children as evidence against a designer. We have no logical way to fence in a Designer who is whimsical. He could design like human's do or in a way that is undetectable by lesser beings. Does this make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that when people point to children with terrible diseases or disabilities, they make the assumption that their own current state of "normalness" would be deserved or morally correct according to the god concept they are testing. If they are wrong of course that just makes us all arrogant, presumptuous ingrates. But without a standard to say what is deserved or morally correct, it's just easier to go with a politically expedient view that makes our consciences feel better. WE'RE not blessed with amazing gifts, it's just that THAT child over there is not given what we all DESERVE! I find that delightfully easy to believe. It makes me feel so good about myself. Yes it must be true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying is that God doesn't owe us anything? And anything is more than we deserve?

      Delete
    2. Yes to the first sentence. As far as what we deserve, I don't see how that could really be established apart from a moral law. With a moral law, God would just say, you deserve this because I made you to be like this because that is what I wanted for your right now. What reasoning could you reach for with which to disagree? I think that is why the penalty for sin is death. I mean, if you don't want to do what you are created to do, then what justification is left to keep you from being "uncreated"? Luckily "mercy triumphs over judgement" and his "goodness leads us to repentance", and "the patience of our Lord is salvation".

      Delete
  13. Perhaps the evolutionists here could answer a question that I haven't received an answer to.

    From an evolutionists view, what should intelligent designed life look like away?

    A. It is impossible to ever determine intelligent design.
    B. No one knows the difference between design and evolution.
    C. No matter what the data shows, intelligent design is not allowed to be considered by default.

    From my viewpoint, C is the position of evolutionists. They do not seem to have any idea at all about drawing a line in the sand and saying specifically that if we find X or Y in the data then this is a strong indication of design... and then actually sticking with it. They've drawn and line in the sand many times, but then keep moving the line. They seem to be just shooting from the hip at whatever shows up while only being true to their position that design is not allowed by default.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A...would be false

      B...the Skilled Designer could make design indistinguishable from evolution,so there may or may not be a difference,depending on the Designer's whims.

      C...humans do not have the ability to create life, humans are the most advanced designers we have direct experience with, so without a designer with the qualifications,it would not be a default setting.

      Delete
  14. Neal: From an evolutionists view, what should intelligent designed life look like away?

    First, what exactly is an "evolutionists" view? I'm asking because it seems to keep changing based on Cornelius' whims.

    Second, what we observe is that designers apply explanatory knowledge when building things. That is they create explanations as to what steps would result in intended outcomes, then only test those explanations.

    This is in contrast to testing a near infinite number of mere possibilities that might end up resulting in their intended outcome.

    So, what we would expect is that most mutations would be advantageous, rather than neutral to detrimental.

    ReplyDelete